Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They had the ability to prevent these phones from functioning and blowing up on users but they didn't do so. That's textbook negligence and will certainly result in a lawsuit. The legal definition being: failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.

And of course, the owner has no responsibility in returning the device and getting something else? This is a well-known issue, and every Note 7 owner knows of the risk by now. For the few die-hards that want to keep their phones, isn't the onus on them at this point? They know the risk and have accepted it. Samsung didn't have to put out a "kill switch".

For an "OldSchoolMacGuy", you certainly think like a Millenial, that everything is someone else's fault and you take no responsiblility for your own actions (or in this case, inactions by continuing to use a phone known to catch fire).

That's the problem with the world nowadays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RiddlaBronc
And of course, the owner has no responsibility in returning the device and getting something else? This is a well-known issue, and every Note 7 owner knows of the risk by now. For the few die-hards that want to keep their phones, isn't the onus on them at this point? Samsung didn't have to put out a "kill switch".

For an "OldSchoolMacGuy", you certainly think like a Millenial, that everything is someone else's fault and you take no responsiblility for your own actions (or in this case, inactions by continuing to use a phone known to catch fire).

That's the problem with the world nowadays.

You obviously have no experience with the legal system. Without a doubt this would result in a lawsuit.

I'm not saying what's right or wrong here. Stop assuming that as it was never said nor implied. I was simply stating that Verizon is opening themselves to law suit by failing to do everything within their power to prevent further incidents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apples n' Stone
I wonder... if you put the Note 7 in a bucket of water outside where it's freezing cold... what happens as the water freezes? Will the water exert enough pressure on the battery while it's expanding/freezing that the battery warms up? Will that then keep the water from freezing?
If that was a serious question: a phone in a freezing bucket of water is going to get somewhat crushed by the pressure of the ice forming. This could cause a short or physical battery failure in any phone, but since the Note 7 debacle appears to be due to something causing them to internally short way too easily it seems like it'd be many times more likely to happen in this particular case. Pure lithium reacts with water, and some of the other electrical or chemical reactions don't require oxygen, so it would likely at least melt a chunk of ice around itself, and probably crack the block due to pressure of evolved gas or maybe even cause a pressure explosion, depending on how the ice formed.

So you'd probably get something between a phone in a small puddle surrounded by ice and the ice blowing up with smoke coming out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArtOfWarfare
The owners have the ability to prevent explosions too by simply returning them. The negligence would fall on the owner because they already know about the recall.

Lol, so where are the current lawsuits for the phones that did blow up?

You mean this one of many massive class action suits?

http://bgr.com/2016/10/18/samsung-note-7-recall-lawsuit-numero-uno/

Or this one?

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ng-galaxy-s6-explosion-lawsuit-note-7-recalls

There are also suits from those impacted by the phones that did combust, which aren't being publicly shared as it could impact the proceedings.
 
You obviously have no experience with the legal system. Without a doubt this would result in a lawsuit.

I'm not saying what's right or wrong here. Stop assuming that as it was never said nor implied. I was simply stating that Verizon is opening themselves to law suit by failing to do everything within their power to prevent further incidents.
Yeah, I'm more of a common sense guy. Not really into suing everyone for everything just to get a buck. But that seems to be the way these days to get rich--do something stupid, get injured, and then blame someone else in a lawsuit where only lawyers get rich. Should I assume you are or were a lawyer?

In any case, I reread your #2 post and I just cannot find where you are putting any responsibility on the Note 7 owner for keeping it. I can only assume then, that you side with the lawyers.
 
I wonder... if you put the Note 7 in a bucket of water outside where it's freezing cold... what happens as the water freezes? Will the water exert enough pressure on the battery while it's expanding/freezing that the battery warms up? Will that then keep the water from freezing?

Normally, cooling is the way to fight Li-Ion thermal overruns. So all that cold might stop it before it starts.

However, at the same time, ice tends to act as insulation, increasing the chance of a thermal overrun.

So... toss up. Dunno. Perhaps the pressure would start a thermal event, and then the melting ice would cool it back down.

Pure lithium reacts with water,

There's almost no Litihium metal involved, so that's not a factor with Li-Ion batteries.

So you'd probably get something between a phone in a small puddle surrounded by ice and the ice blowing up with smoke coming out.

I agree. Well, except for the actual "blowing up" part.

I hope none of my friends or family that are flying for the holidays are on a plane with one of these idiots.

Judging from the past twenty plus years of Li-Ion in-cabin fire history, the worst that'll happen is their plane'll get diverted because of smoke. Or not.

It'd be no different than all the previous Li-Ion fires in passenger cabins, including the ones already caused by iPhones.

The FAA is okay with up to 160 Watt hour batteries in the cabin. The Note 7 battery is about 18 Watt hours. Nowhere even close to the FAA risk limit. Their ban was more political and/or caused by airlines not wanting to spend extra money diverting/cleaning.

Hint: laptop fires are much more risky, because they have much bigger batteries. And yet even their 60+ Watt hour batteries are considered below the risk limit.

Of course I read. The headline says that Verizon is pushing the update -- but only after the holidays. So the way it reads is that they're going to try to make all the sales they can during the holiday period.

Your posts make no sense. What "sales" are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
I hope none of my friends or family that are flying for the holidays are on a plane with one of these idiots.
They can't take these on the planes without risking being arrested.

But honestly, I still say this update is a BAD idea and sets a very dangerous precedent that could be extended to anything you purchase, meaning you never actually own anything.
 
Of course I read. The headline says that Verizon is pushing the update -- but only after the holidays. So the way it reads is that they're going to try to make all the sales they can during the holiday period.
Make all the sales? You realize no one has sold this phone for months right?
 
Make all the sales? You realize no one has sold this phone for months right?
Okay -- I understand now. The impression I got is that Verizon wouldn't push the "brick" update to keep sales going. But (duh) they're not selling the phone. If they wanted to spur sales, they'd brick the devices NOW so that people would be forced into getting a new phone before the holidays.

But given the danger with the phones, I still don't know why they're waiting to push the update. Aren't the buyers of the Note 7 entitled to a new phone anyway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppleFan91
What's the deal with Samsung phones being dependent on carriers for software updates? Never understood that. Why can't they directly push out updates like Apple? When Apple wants to brick their devices they can do it without those pesky carriers getting in their way.
 
What's the deal with Samsung phones being dependent on carriers for software updates? Never understood that. Why can't they directly push out updates like Apple? When Apple wants to brick their devices they can do it without those pesky carriers getting in their way.

The carriers want to test* the software out before pushing it out.

(*test meaning putting their bloatware in with the software)
[doublepost=1481955588][/doublepost]Apple got lucky due to the fact that iOS is designed for the iPhone.
 
#Chestnuts roasting on an open fire...

I don't understand why they haven't all pushed the update already. It doesn't take long to buy a cheap 'burner' (irony ... heheh) phone for the holidays if that is such a concern. What would people do if they dropped their phone in a river or it got stolen...? If they'd bricked them sooner, they'd have had more time to deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sudo1996
Yeah, I'm more of a common sense guy. Not really into suing everyone for everything just to get a buck. But that seems to be the way these days to get rich--do something stupid, get injured, and then blame someone else in a lawsuit where only lawyers get rich. Should I assume you are or were a lawyer?

In any case, I reread your #2 post and I just cannot find where you are putting any responsibility on the Note 7 owner for keeping it. I can only assume then, that you side with the lawyers.

I don't side with the lawyers. Sadly, consumer responsibility isn't really a thing in the US. The manufacturer is always going to be liable even if they've told the consumer not to use the device.

For instance, with the exploding airbags in millions of vehicles, recalls have been issued. The manufacturer has made people aware of the issue and asked them to bring their vehicles in to have them replaced. But if someone has one explode before they bring it in, they have the right to sue the auto maker and will win big. If Toyota, Honda, and others could remotely turn off these air bags (ignoring the requirement of airbags in modern cars), they would. In this case, Verizon has that ability and is choosing not to, which is strange given the other option of risking further lawsuits.

Basically, you're still liable for your products even if you've warned others they may be unsafe.
 
For instance, with the exploding airbags in millions of vehicles, recalls have been issued. The manufacturer has made people aware of the issue and asked them to bring their vehicles in to have them replaced. But if someone has one explode before they bring it in, they have the right to sue the auto maker and will win big.

Not necessarily. The automaker can argue that you had contributory or comparative negligence for ignoring the recall, and deserve nothing or comparatively less.

Moreover, there's another lawsuit vector. If an owner ignores the recall and causes injury to anyone else (or their property) because of it, that owner can be sued by the injured party.
 
Not necessarily. The automaker can argue that you had contributory or comparative negligence for ignoring the recall, and deserve nothing or comparatively less.

Moreover, there's another lawsuit vector. If an owner ignores the recall and causes injury to anyone else (or their property) because of it, that owner can be sued by the injured party.
But the airbag manufacturer would likely get sued to pick up the tab. Ignoring the recall is a bit general because it can take quite a bit of time to find, notify and schedule the work necessary.
 
Articles like this are pithy-comment fodder, and I have not been disappointed.

I just find it somewhat hilarious that a software update designed to render the device useless is considered an improvement.

Product Manager: Can you please write a software update that bricks the phone.
Developer: Wait, didn't you say you would fire me if I did that again?
Product Manager: Yeah, but this time I want you to brick it.
Developer: <in head> "Stupid management, can't ever seem to make them happy."
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.